Posthumans Are Not Posthumans: Considering Non-Posthumans
An Essay
ABOUT THE WRITER
Kenji Siratori is a Japanese avant-garde artist who is currently bombarding the internet with wave upon wave of highly experimental, uncompromising, progressive, intense prose. His is a writing style that not only breaks with tradition, it severs all cords, and can only really be compared to the kind of experimental writing techniques employed by the Surrealists, William Burroughs and Antonin Artaud. You can catalyze with his website here.
You can purchase a PDF file of his book EXCREMENT for any price here.
Biosemiotics, the study of signs and codes in living systems, provides a framework for understanding all life as a process of semiosis. Marcello Barbieri distinguishes between sign-based biosemiotics and code-based biosemiotics, noting that while modern biology acknowledges the genetic code, it resists recognizing semiosis at the molecular level. As he states, "modern biology has never accepted that the existence of the genetic code implies that every cell is a semiotic system." This resistance is predicated on three core tenets of modern biology: the genotype-phenotype model, physicalism, and the role of natural selection. Each of these assumes a deterministic framework that reduces biological processes to physical laws, overlooking the role of semiotic agency. If posthumanism is to be truly non-anthropocentric, it must integrate the insights of biosemiotics and acknowledge that posthuman identity itself is subject to the same semiotic structures as any other living system. Posthumans are not posthumans in any exceptionalist sense; they are embedded within a vast semiotic web that includes non-posthuman entities such as bacteria, viruses, and other molecular lifeforms. Barbieri’s model of the cell as a triadic structure consisting of genotype, phenotype, and ribotype suggests that life is fundamentally an artifact-making process. "Life is artifact-making," he asserts, highlighting the role of molecular machines in constructing biological reality. This disrupts traditional posthumanist narratives that envision the posthuman as a cybernetic or technologically augmented being. Instead, the posthuman is already an artifact-making entity at the molecular level, participating in semiotic exchanges with non-posthuman forms of life. Bacteria, for example, engage in lateral gene transfer, effectively "rewriting" genetic information in ways that challenge strict evolutionary determinism. If biosemiotics recognizes microbial agency in shaping life’s evolutionary trajectory, then posthumanism must abandon any lingering human-centered teleology. The posthuman is not simply an extension of the human but an emergent process within a broader semiotic ecology. What, then, constitutes a "non-posthuman"? If posthumans are entangled in biosemiotic networks, the distinction between posthuman and non-posthuman collapses into a continuum of semiotic interaction. The supposed boundary between human, posthuman, and microbial life is itself a semiotic fiction, maintained by anthropocentric discourse. The genetic code, as Barbieri notes, does not merely function as a metaphor—it is a real code, an operative semiotic system that binds all life into an interdependent web. Thus, to think posthumanism biosemiotically is to recognize that non-posthumans (bacteria, archaea, viruses, and other microbial entities) actively participate in constructing biological meaning. The posthuman, in this sense, is always already co-constituted by non-posthuman agencies. Barbieri’s model of biological semiosis emphasizes the fundamental role of codemaking in life. He argues that the genetic code is not a metaphor but an actual code governed by conventions rather than chemical determinism. The genetic code does not arise from mere stereochemistry but is mediated by molecular machines—codemakers—whose function is irreducible to mere chemistry. This perspective challenges traditional notions of biological determinism, instead proposing that life is organized through semiotic processes. The genotype-phenotype duality, long regarded as the fundamental structure of biological life, is incomplete without the ribotype—the seat of the codemaker. The ribotype historically predates the genotype and phenotype, suggesting that life’s organization was initially structured by ribosoids, molecular machines that established the first coding relationships. Posthuman discourse frequently assumes an overcoming of biological constraints, often through technological enhancement or cybernetic integration. However, if life itself is structured through a codemaking process, then posthumans, however modified, remain within a framework of biological semiosis. The insistence on a radical break from the human condition ignores the fundamental nature of biological codemaking, which is not simply a mechanism of genetic transmission but a semiotic system necessary for all living entities. If posthumans retain any biological substrate, they remain within the domain of molecular semiosis, bound by the very codemaking processes that define life. The challenge of posthumanism is not simply the transition beyond the human but the inclusion of non-posthumans—bacteria, archaea, and other organisms that have been engaged in molecular codemaking for billions of years. The assumption that human enhancement or technological augmentation constitutes a fundamental rupture in the trajectory of life fails to recognize that non-human organisms have already developed forms of adaptation, resilience, and transformation that exceed any posthuman ambition. For example, extremophiles, organisms capable of surviving in conditions that would annihilate most known life forms, demonstrate the power of biological codemaking without any need for cybernetic intervention. Their survival strategies underscore the importance of semiotic processes at the molecular level, reinforcing the argument that posthuman transformations, however radical, remain within the broader framework of codemaking established by non-posthumans. If posthumans continue to operate within a semiotic framework dependent on codemaking, they are not truly posthuman in any absolute sense. Instead, they represent another variation within the continuum of biological semiosis, one that non-posthumans have already explored through evolution. The insistence on a posthuman rupture ignores the deep semiotic continuity of life and the role of codemaking in defining existence. Rather than marking a fundamental departure, posthumanism should be reconceptualized as an extension of biological semiosis, one that acknowledges the profound contributions of non-posthumans to the structure of life itself. Barbieri articulates that a code is a set of rules establishing a correspondence between objects of two independent worlds. This definition is critical in understanding how meaning is constructed in both organic and technological contexts. Just as the Morse code establishes a semiotic relationship between symbols and letters, the genetic code functions as a correspondence between nucleotides and amino acids, generating what Barbieri terms "organic meaning." This perspective allows us to problematize the assumption that posthumans constitute a break from prior forms of meaning and existence. Rather, posthuman identity is emergent within an ongoing system of biological coding, continuously mediated by organic and non-organic semiotic structures. The assertion that posthumans are not posthumans suggests that the posthuman condition is not a radical break from the human but an iterative transformation within a codified structure of life. If organic meaning is irreducible and fundamental, then posthuman meaning remains entangled with preexisting biological and semiotic systems, thus defying absolute delineation. Schrödinger’s prophetic assertion that life may involve unknown "other laws of physics" can be revisited through organic codes. Barbieri expands on this by suggesting that organic information and organic meaning are not merely physical quantities but nominable entities that emerge through coding processes. This view foregrounds the notion that biological meaning does not disappear in the posthuman era but rather continues to shape identity and cognition. The non-posthuman persists because the coding structures that generate organic meaning remain foundational, even as technological modifications alter the form and function of human existence. Furthermore, if organic information and meaning are fundamental entities, then the transition from human to posthuman is not a negation of prior biological structures but an elaboration upon them. Posthuman identity, then, is not a rupture but a continuation of life’s preexisting semiotic fabric, where non-posthumans remain intrinsic to the structure of posthuman existence. The idea that "life is artifact-making" underscores the extent to which biological and cultural artifacts are co-constructive. Language, mathematics, and proteins exhibit similar developmental trajectories: each begins with a generative mechanism and subsequently unfolds into an exploratory domain where new properties emerge. This process mirrors the development of posthuman identity, which, rather than transcending the human, remains rooted in a process of iterative transformation. The non-posthuman, then, is neither an obsolete remnant nor a static entity but a foundational layer within this continuum. Just as epigenetic factors contribute to the expression of genetic codes, non-posthumans contribute to the formulation of posthuman meaning. Posthumans do not emerge ex nihilo; rather, they arise from the codification processes of the non-posthuman, retaining the underlying semiotic structures that define life. The interplay of organic meaning and posthuman identity reveals that posthumans are not distinct from their non-posthuman predecessors but are, instead, an extension of biological and semiotic processes. Meaning, as Barbieri argues, is inseparable from the codes that generate it, and these codes persist across evolutionary and technological transformations. The non-posthuman remains embedded within the fabric of posthuman existence, ensuring that the continuity of organic meaning transcends any simplistic division between human and posthuman states. Theories surrounding the coding of biological processes—such as gene splicing, signal transduction, cytoskeletal dynamics, and compartmentalization—suggest that the essence of what it means to be "human" or "posthuman" may be less about transcending humanity and more about recognizing the embedded molecular processes that govern all life forms. These molecular codes shape not only human existence but all forms of life, rendering the human condition and its future posthuman states as fundamentally non-posthuman when viewed within a broader biological context. A key component of the argument against posthumanism is the role of molecular biology in maintaining biological specificity and functionality. At the heart of molecular processes lies the concept of codes, as outlined by bacteriologists such as Barbieri. The discovery of splicing mechanisms in RNA, which transform primary transcripts into messenger RNAs, exemplifies the intricate codified nature of life. In gene splicing, "exons are assembled into messengers" with "splicing codes" ensuring the biological specificity of cellular processes. These processes, fundamental to the functioning of all life forms, suggest that existence itself is mediated through a series of interdependent codes, adaptors, and recognition processes that are not uniquely human. The analogy to posthumanism is clear: the human capacity to "transcend" through technology or biological enhancement may be likened to the molecular adaptation of RNA, where specific molecular "adaptors" (snRNAs or snurps) define the function and output of biological systems. In this sense, "posthumans" are not simply enhanced or evolved beings but are instead recontextualized as beings already governed by codified molecular processes—processes that do not necessarily rely on conscious awareness or technological intervention. The very processes of cellular recognition and adaptation predate any human or posthuman state, undermining the distinctiveness of a future posthuman identity. Barbieri's exploration of signal transduction further complicates the human-posthuman dichotomy. Signal transduction involves the conversion of external environmental signals (first messengers) into internal cellular responses (second messengers), a process governed by complex molecular rules. The use of adaptors, receptors, and mediators to translate environmental inputs into genetic expression reflects a coded interaction between the "outside" world and the cellular machinery. This process, as described by Sutherland, exemplifies how biological systems engage in non-human-centric communication. The absence of any necessary connection between first and second messengers emphasizes that the code governing biological reactions is arbitrary and adaptable, not strictly tied to any specific form of life, whether human or posthuman. The use of codes in signal transduction demonstrates the extent to which life, in all its forms, is an inherently codified existence, with no intrinsic boundary between human, posthuman, or non-human entities. From this perspective, posthumanism—defined as an eventual shift beyond human nature—becomes a problematic notion. The process of translating environmental stimuli into genetic responses is a ubiquitous feature of life that transcends human limits. The codes and adaptors that define cellular processes are not uniquely human; they are universal, suggesting that humanity's projected future posthuman state is already subsumed within the broader framework of molecular existence. Even at the level of cellular architecture, posthumanism becomes difficult to maintain. The cytoskeleton, a dynamic network of filaments crucial for cellular functions such as movement and structural integrity, operates through what is termed "dynamic instability." The cytoskeleton's ability to form and dissolve structures rapidly reflects an ongoing process of molecular adaptation that mirrors the principles of adaptability in signal transduction and gene splicing. The cytoskeleton's dynamic nature demonstrates how life continuously evolves and reorganizes without necessarily transitioning into a "posthuman" or evolved state. Just as the cytoskeleton's anchoring molecules adapt to form diverse cellular structures, posthumans could be seen as another arbitrary variation within a much larger system of biological adaptation. The cytoskeleton operates through a code of natural conventions, much like the compartment codes that govern the intracellular movement and delivery of molecules to specific destinations within the cell. These processes, far from being uniquely human or posthuman, are foundational to all life and underscore the universality of biological coding mechanisms. The concept of sequence codes as proposed by Trifonov offers another layer of complexity. Trifonov's theory posits that nucleotide sequences carry multiple overlapping messages, suggesting that genes are not merely sequences for protein synthesis but also encode a range of functions beyond traditional biological roles. This multiplicity of codes includes transcription, splicing, translation pausing, and even structural aspects of DNA, each governed by distinct but interconnected rules. The existence of multiple overlapping codes challenges the posthuman ideal, as it suggests that the potential for biological transformation or enhancement is already coded within the genome itself. Posthumanism, when seen through this lens, appears not as a future evolution but as a current, ongoing process of molecular adaptation, where humanity's future state is already embedded within the rules of nature. The study of molecular biology, particularly the role of splicing, signal transduction, cytoskeletal dynamics, and genomic sequence codes, forces us to reconsider the notion of the posthuman. Rather than representing a departure from humanity, posthumanism can be seen as an extension of the deeply codified biological processes that define all life forms. The biological systems governing gene expression, cellular architecture, and signal integration operate through a set of rules and conventions that are universal and non-human in nature. In this sense, posthumans are not so much "post" humans as they are participants in a much larger, ongoing dialogue between molecular codes, biological functions, and environmental interactions. At the heart of evolutionary biology lies the debate over the mechanisms responsible for genetic change. The Modern Synthesis, established in the 1930s and 1940s, presented natural selection as the primary mechanism driving evolution. However, as advancements in molecular biology have illuminated, natural selection is not a singular or exhaustive explanation for evolutionary dynamics. One of the foundational mechanisms of evolution is molecular copying, which is responsible for the heredity of genetic traits. As organisms reproduce, the genetic material undergoes copying and occasional errors—mutations—that drive variation. The process of natural selection works by favoring these variations, which result in adaptations that enhance the organism's survival in a given environment. Natural selection, therefore, produces "relative novelties"—modifications of pre-existing biological forms. However, another molecular mechanism—coding—proposes a different form of change. Bacteriologists and evolutionary theorists have pointed out that coding is not simply a process of copying but a more complex system of rule-based transformation. While copying produces slight modifications of existing molecules, coding has the potential to generate entirely new molecular entities. As outlined by evolutionary theorists such as Barbieri, coding can bring about "absolute novelties," which are disconnected from previous structures and relationships. This is the case with the genetic code, which defines the rules for translating genetic information into functional proteins. In contrast to the relatively predictable and iterative changes produced by molecular copying, coding introduces a broader conceptual shift that allows for the appearance of entirely new biological functions and forms. Thus, the molecular mechanisms underlying life do not only pertain to the gradual modifications of existing systems. Instead, coding mechanisms can introduce radical transformations—entirely new systems of molecular interaction that produce novel biological entities. This distinction is particularly important when considering the future of human evolution, where posthuman theories often imply a radical departure from the current biological framework. Yet, as coding mechanisms continually produce new forms of biological life, the distinction between humans and posthumans might not be as pronounced as it appears. In fact, considering the history of life on Earth, the emergence of new codes has been a driving force in macroevolution. Each time a new organic code emerges, it represents a fundamental shift that reshapes the trajectory of evolutionary history. The origin of the genetic code, for instance, facilitated the development of protein-based life and hereditary systems. Similarly, the emergence of other codes—such as those governing signal transduction, splicing, and cytoskeletal formation—has been intimately linked with the origins of new life forms, including complex multicellular organisms. By viewing evolution through the lens of coding rather than merely natural selection, it becomes evident that the emergence of "posthumans" may not represent an entirely distinct event in the evolutionary timeline. Rather, the process of evolution may simply continue through the introduction of new codes—whether biological, technological, or a synthesis of both—that drive the creation of new forms of life. Posthumanity, in this sense, is not a dramatic rupture from humanity but rather a continuation of the same evolutionary processes that have shaped life on Earth since its inception. This view also challenges the assumptions that technological advancements will lead to a sharp break between humans and their evolutionary predecessors. Technological integration, whether through genetic engineering, cybernetic enhancement, or artificial intelligence, might not necessarily be a "posthuman" event, but rather a continuation of the evolutionary principle of coding. The process of coding is inherently tied to the generation of novel forms, and human beings, as biological organisms, have always been subject to the same principles of molecular change that underlie all forms of life. Indeed, the role of coding in evolution suggests that the future of human life may not be as radically different from its present as often imagined. Instead, it could represent a deepening of the mechanisms already at play in biological evolution, where new codes and collective rules continue to emerge, shaping the trajectory of life in ways that have yet to be fully understood. The transition from human to posthuman, therefore, may not be marked by a clear separation from our biological roots, but rather by the evolution of new systems of molecular change that continue to blur the lines between humanity and other life forms. Bacteriologists assert that life is essentially a manufacturing activity, based on molecular mechanisms that engage in the processes of copying and coding. François Jacob's assertion that life involves not just internal mechanisms but also an inseparable relationship with the environment is pivotal here. He posits that life cannot be understood as a purely internal construct; rather, it is a process that relies heavily on external inputs and contexts. The environment provides the building blocks for life, and it is within this environment that life forms adapt, evolve, and are tested for viability. Jacob's point aligns with the notion that posthumanism—typically thought of as the transcendence of human biological limits through technology—might be a misnomer. The core of life remains a system of code and adaptation to the environment. For instance, the process of natural selection, as Darwin proposed, hinges on the fact that organisms must adapt to their surroundings in order to survive. This continuous interplay between internal molecular mechanisms and the external world suggests that posthumans, despite their technological enhancements, are still governed by these fundamental biological principles. Jacob's observation that "if the image that a bird gets of the insects it needs to feed its progeny does not reflect at least some aspects of reality, there are no more progeny," underlines the critical relationship between organisms and the reality they inhabit. Posthumans, regardless of their artificial augmentations or digital consciousness, cannot escape this reality; their survival is still dependent on the physical and environmental world they engage with. Therefore, the boundary between the posthuman and the non-posthuman blurs as both are subject to the same existential laws. The theory of Common Descent, which posits that all living organisms share a common origin, provides a compelling argument against the idea of a sharp division between posthumans and non-posthumans. The introduction of new genetic codes and organic structures through evolutionary processes challenges the notion that life, in any form, is ever truly static. Life's creative power, as Barbieri suggests, has not diminished over time; instead, it is an ongoing process of natural conventions and evolutionary forces that bring about novelties and adaptations. The idea that life is continually generating novelties—such as the origin of embryos, the mind, or language—reinforces the idea that the posthuman is not some wholly separate entity from the rest of life but rather an extension of the biological continuum. The multiple origins of life suggest that there are many ways in which new forms of life—whether natural or technologically enhanced—emerge. Posthumanism, then, does not mark a fundamental break from the evolutionary process but rather an extension of it. If new codes are introduced into the biological or technological systems, then the posthuman can be seen as a novel iteration of life, one that still shares a connection to the larger evolutionary narrative. The study of biosemiotics, particularly the work of scholars like Jesper Hoffmeyer and Thomas Sebeok, offers an intriguing perspective on the relationship between life and meaning. Biosemiotics is based on the idea that life, at all levels, is a process of sign-making and interpretation. At the molecular level, biosemiotics examines how biological systems communicate through codes and molecular structures. The discovery of the genetic code in the 1960s revealed that life itself is a language system, where molecular codes govern the functions and structures of living organisms. This concept challenges the idea that posthumanism is a break from biology, instead suggesting that all life—whether biological or augmented—is part of a semiotic system. Life’s semiotic nature, as described by Sebeok, emphasizes that interpretation is a defining feature of semiosis, the process of producing and interpreting signs. In this way, even posthuman systems, which may operate through artificial or digitally encoded processes, still adhere to the fundamental rules of semiosis. Posthumans, as enhanced or digitized entities, would not escape the logic of interpretation and semiotic communication. Biosemiotics reminds us that interpretation, rather than mere copying or coding, is the crucial factor in creating meaning in life. This process of interpretation is not confined to organic systems but extends to artificial ones as well, indicating that the line between posthuman and non-posthuman is porous. While posthumans may engage in more complex forms of semiosis, they are still engaged in a fundamentally biological process—one that is rooted in the same semiotic foundations that govern the lives of bacteria, plants, and animals. As described by the biologist Terrence Deacon, life has evolved through three key innovations in semiosis: the origin of organic semiosis, the emergence of interpretation (the hermeneutic threshold), and the rise of symbolic language (the symbolic threshold). The evolutionary process that gave rise to these innovations—beginning with context-free genetic codes, followed by interpretive behavioral responses, and ultimately leading to shared linguistic codes—has been ongoing since the origins of life. This process highlights a fundamental continuity between life forms, one that is not suddenly disrupted or transcended by the advent of posthumanity. The first step in the evolution of semiosis, organic semiosis, refers to the basic processes of coding that occur at the molecular level. At this early stage, life forms operated based on genetic information encoded in DNA. This form of semiosis, though rudimentary, was not static. Over time, more complex processes evolved that allowed for greater flexibility and adaptation. As organisms began to develop the capacity for learning and memory, they transitioned to a higher level of semiosis—interpretation. This ability to interpret and respond to environmental signals based on past experiences marked a crucial shift in the behavioral capabilities of organisms. Learning and memory introduce a level of flexibility to semiosis that goes beyond rigid, genetically determined responses. When organisms began learning to interpret signals from their environment, they simultaneously began constructing behavioral codes that were context-dependent, rather than genetically hard-wired. This is what Deacon refers to as "interpretive semiosis." The process of interpretation, while still grounded in biological systems, allowed for a deeper form of meaning-making that is both context-dependent and memory-driven. It is a type of semiosis that could evolve dynamically over time, adapting to new circumstances, rather than being fixed in a preordained genetic code. The ability to interpret signals opened the door to a new level of complexity in how organisms respond to the world around them, creating a greater range of behavioral possibilities. From this perspective, the human condition—often viewed as the pinnacle of posthuman evolution—can be understood not as a singular event but as part of a gradual continuum of evolutionary changes in semiosis. Human beings, like all other life forms, evolved through a series of increasing complexities in the ways they interact with and interpret their environment. The use of language, which emerged as a symbolic form of semiosis, represents the latest stage in this long evolutionary process. Language, as a shared and culturally constructed system of meaning, allows for an even greater degree of flexibility in interpretation, enabling humans to communicate complex ideas and adapt their behaviors to a wider range of contexts. The key argument here is that posthumanism, as commonly conceived, assumes a discontinuity in the evolutionary process—a sharp break between the human and the posthuman. This assumption is rooted in a certain cultural narrative of progress, one that views technology and human enhancement as inevitable steps toward a future of radical transformation. However, from the standpoint of biosemiotics, such a break is unnecessary. The evolution of life and the development of semiosis represent a continuous, ongoing process that does not necessitate a final or ultimate "posthuman" state. Posthumanism, as typically framed, revolves around the notion of human transcendence and enhancement, often involving bioengineering, artificial intelligence, and the reshaping of human identity. However, this narrative presupposes that "human" is a definable, finite category—a concept that recent scientific advancements, particularly in the study of extremophiles, challenge. These microorganisms, living in extreme environments, exhibit capabilities that suggest evolution does not need to be bound by human limitations or the idea of a posthuman future. As bacteria, archaea, and extremophiles demonstrate, life can exist and adapt across conditions that defy traditional biological expectations. Enzymes derived from extremophiles, for instance, have revolutionized industries ranging from bioremediation to pharmaceuticals. These organisms, which thrive under extreme conditions of heat, salinity, and pressure, offer insights into a form of evolution that does not depend on the human-centric narrative of progress or enhancement. Instead, extremophiles present a radically different model of life—one that is not predicated on a linear trajectory of advancement but on adaptation to the extreme, the inhospitable, and the unforgiving. The mounting shift toward sustainable technological practices, particularly in the context of green chemistry and biotechnology, offers a powerful critique of human exceptionalism. Enzymes from extremophiles, which can withstand harsh industrial conditions such as high temperatures and acidic or alkaline environments, are increasingly sought after for industrial applications. These enzymes exhibit a range of capabilities that traditional biocatalysts from mesophilic organisms cannot replicate. As Raddadi et al. and Karan et al. note, the diversity of extreme environments—from thermophiles in geothermal waters to halophiles in hypersaline ecosystems—promises to yield biocatalysts capable of operating under a broader array of conditions. These biological adaptations, in their resistance to environmental extremes, exemplify the "posthuman" in ways that traditional human-focused narratives cannot capture. Moreover, extremophiles challenge the conventional view of life’s fragility. While the human experience has often been defined by struggle against environmental forces, extremophiles have adapted to environments considered inhospitable to most forms of life. These microorganisms possess enzymes that function under high-pressure conditions, extreme temperatures, and even radiation. In essence, extremophiles are not only surviving but thriving in conditions that would obliterate many forms of life. This survival strategy, grounded in the optimization of biochemical processes rather than technological intervention, provides a blueprint for what a true "posthuman" condition might look like: not an elevation of the human species, but the embracing of adaptability and resilience in the face of the extreme. The continued exploration of extremophiles raises critical questions about the anthropocentric assumptions of posthumanism. These microorganisms, which span all three domains of life—bacteria, archaea, and eukarya—demonstrate that the potential for adaptation is not confined to the human species, nor is it limited by technological intervention. As biotechnology advances, the focus is shifting away from human-centric models of improvement and toward the use of extremophiles to solve pressing environmental and industrial challenges. The biocatalysts derived from extremophiles are in high demand for applications ranging from pharmaceutical production to environmental remediation, highlighting the growing role of non-human life forms in shaping the future of biotechnology. Furthermore, the genetic and biochemical diversity of extremophiles challenges the notion of a unified "posthuman" trajectory. As Sysoev et al. discuss, the ability of extremophiles to thrive in diverse and extreme conditions—whether under high salinity, extreme heat, or low temperatures—suggests that posthumanism, as traditionally conceived, is a limited and human-centric vision. Instead, extremophiles exemplify a more radical form of adaptability, one that operates outside of human goals and aspirations. Radiophiles, such as those found in environments of intense radiation, demonstrate a form of life resistant to mutagenic damage from radiation like UV, gamma, and X-rays. This resistance is made possible by secondary metabolic products, such as extremolytes, that protect DNA from oxidative stress. Contrary to the traditional view of "posthumanism" as a transition from human to a higher state, radiophiles remind us that biological innovation in extreme conditions may not necessarily be about transcending humanity but about expanding the known limits of survival and adaptability. As bacteriologist Singh and Gabani suggest, bacterioruberin and deinoxanthin from Halobacterium and Deinococcus radiodurans have potential therapeutic applications in cancer, providing the biotechnological promise of extremophiles in medicinal treatments. This aligns with posthuman discourse in its futuristic possibilities but subverts the anthropocentric focus by emphasizing non-human forms of resistance to environmental adversity. Radiophiles thrive without human-like traits or aspirations for transcendence, yet their resilience in extreme environments speaks to a parallel, yet fundamentally different, pathway of adaptation. Their evolutionary trajectory does not hinge on reaching a "posthuman" ideal, but rather on cultivating biological systems that resist the ravages of their surroundings. In this sense, these extremophiles present a type of "non-posthuman" life, which, while not posthuman in the conventional sense, challenges the anthropocentric ideals embedded in many posthuman frameworks. Polyextremophiles, which grow in multiple extremes such as hypersaline environments, high-pressure deep-sea vents, and the ice-covered waters of Antarctica, offer further insight into non-posthuman survival mechanisms. Their ability to withstand extreme salt concentrations and temperatures ranging from −20°C to 68°C offers a glimpse into the broader capacities of life forms that far exceed typical human thresholds for adaptation. The enzymes extracted from these organisms, such as halothermophiles and halopsychrophiles, display unique properties that could have transformative impacts on biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. These extremozymes are being explored for their potential in diverse industries, from food processing to drug manufacturing, yet they do not share human-centric goals of "progress" or transcendence. Rather, they exist in an ongoing state of adaptation to their ecological niches, revealing an evolutionary trajectory that is alien to the posthuman ideals centered on humanity's quest for ascension. The potential applications of polyextremophiles in medicine, such as enzymes from alkalithermophilic bacteria for use in pharmaceuticals, further complicate the divide between human and non-human. These extremophiles may not possess human-like consciousness or existential aspirations, yet their biological systems—capable of thriving under harsh, lethal conditions—suggest that life itself is not defined by a trajectory of transcendence. Instead, life is about persistence and adaptation, irrespective of human-like qualities or ambitions. The study of extremophiles’ biochemical adaptations offers an expanded view of the potential non-posthuman future. For instance, mycosporin-like amino acids (MAAs) from the red alga Porphyra rosengurttii are already in use as UV-protective agents in sunscreens, demonstrating that extremophiles can contribute to human health in unexpected ways. These metabolites, which evolved in organisms exposed to high levels of UV radiation, could be leveraged in the fight against UV-induced cancers like melanoma, a phenomenon exemplified by the use of bacterioruberin for therapeutic applications. Here, the radical otherness of extremophiles offers a form of biotechnology that transcends human biology but does not require humanity to evolve into something beyond itself. The process of harnessing their capabilities, however, necessitates the reevaluation of what it means to "improve" human life, blurring the boundaries between the human and the non-human in the process. While these discoveries hold profound implications for future medical and technological advancements, they also illustrate that "posthuman" futures might not be driven by the direct enhancement of human traits but by expanding our engagement with life forms far removed from human experience. These organisms, thriving in extreme environments, show that the future may not lie in transcending humanity but in exploring the possibilities offered by non-posthuman modes of life that exist beyond human-centric frameworks. In the contemporary discourse surrounding microbiomes, microbial life, and bodily health, posthumanism and the notion of "posthumans" have increasingly become critical touchstones. These concepts, traditionally rooted in cybernetics and transhumanist thought, have evolved to encompass a broader view of the human condition, one that integrates the non-human, microbial world into the very fabric of the human body and experience. This essay aims to explore the premise that posthumans, when considered through the lens of microbial engagement, may not constitute a departure from humanity at all. Rather, posthumans, as a distinct category, might be better understood through non-posthumans—those beings who exist in symbiosis with the microbial life that constitutes much of the human microbiome. Central to this thesis is the practice of Faecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT), a contemporary post-Pasteurian medical intervention that reintroduces microbial life into the human body. This process serves as a material act of rewilding the microbiome, reconstituting balance in a bodily ecology that has been disrupted by external factors such as antibiotic use. FMT offers both a fascinating perspective through which to understand the relationship between posthumanism and microbial life, and an opportunity to challenge the traditional boundaries of what constitutes "human." By examining FMT through both the scientific narratives and lived experiences of its users, we can question whether humans, in their reliance on microbial life for health and survival, are ever truly "posthuman." Faecal Microbiota Transplantation operates on the premise that a healthy, diverse microbiome offers protection against pathogenic bacteria, an idea encapsulated in the theory of colonisation resistance. According to Pamer, the human microbiome acts as a barrier to microbial invasion, one that is often compromised by antibiotics, which indiscriminately kill both beneficial and harmful microbes. When this balance is disrupted, conditions such as Clostridium difficile (C.Diff) can proliferate, highlighting the fragility of the human-microbe relationship. This colonisation resistance theory situates the microbiome not as a passive entity within the human body but as an active, living ecosystem that plays a critical role in maintaining bodily health. The human body, therefore, is not a singular, autonomous entity but an amalgamation of human and microbial life, suggesting that what we consider "human" is already a hybrid, a posthuman form inextricably linked to the microbial world. FMT, then, becomes a form of post-Pasteurian medicine, reintroducing diversity into the microbial ecosystem. In this regard, FMT challenges the modern biomedical paradigm of the body as an isolated, self-contained organism. Instead, the human body is reimagined as a porous, interconnected system, constantly interacting with its microbial environment. As microbiologist Jack Gilbert notes, the concept of "human" is increasingly being reframed as one of "microbial collective," where health is not defined by human attributes alone but by the harmonious relationship between the human and non-human entities within the body. The representation of microbes within scientific and popular discourse plays a critical role in shaping the way we view and interact with the microbial world. Paxson and Helmreich emphasize that microbes do not "speak for themselves" but are framed through scientific discourse, advertisements, and cultural narratives. In much of Western medical and public culture, microbes are represented as "germs," a term imbued with negative connotations that position microbes as threats to human health. This representation functions within a larger narrative of hygiene, safety, and biosecurity, which frames the human body as a battlefield in the war against pathogenic microbes. Cleaning product advertisements, for instance, animate microbes as monstrous entities to be eradicated, tapping into the martial language of immunity. These representations contribute to a dichotomy between the "self" (the human) and the "other" (the microbe), reinforcing the notion that microbial life must be controlled, expelled, or eradicated. This view aligns with the concept of the human as an autonomous, self-contained being, a worldview that FMT challenges by emphasizing the necessity of microbial life for human health. The dichotomy of "good" microbes and "bad" microbes in popular discourse also overlooks the complex, interconnected nature of microbial ecosystems. Rather than a simple binary of life and death, the microbiome is a dynamic system in which microbes interact, evolve, and contribute to the health of the host in ways that are not yet fully understood. This complexity calls into question the notion that humans can or should be "cleansed" of microbial life altogether. The concept of non-posthumans provides a useful framework for understanding the interplay between humans and microbes. Unlike posthumanism, which often assumes a trajectory of transcending the human body and its limitations, non-posthumans are not "beyond" humanity but are rather fully immersed in the ongoing process of becoming, which includes their microbial counterparts. This view aligns with the understanding that human health and identity are not solely defined by human attributes but are deeply entangled with the microbial life that inhabits our bodies. In this sense, the practice of FMT can be seen as an intervention that acknowledges the interdependence between humans and microbes. FMT represents a return to a more "natural" state of human existence, one that recognizes the body's intrinsic link to its microbial environment. Through FMT, the human body is reimagined not as a self-contained, individual entity but as a dynamic, interconnected organism in constant dialogue with its microbial inhabitants. The concept of posthumans—whether framed as cyborgs, transhumans, or other speculative forms—has long been associated with the idea of transcending the human body. However, the practice of Faecal Microbiota Transplantation offers a different perspective on posthumanism, one that emphasizes the entwinement of human and microbial life. In this context, posthumans are not "beyond" humanity but are rather a reflection of the symbiotic, ecological relationships that define human existence.